Beni-Suef University

Faculty of Veterinary Medicine

Dept. of Nutrition and Clinical Nutrition

Presentation on

the project of

Feed restriction, unconventional

feeds, and feed additives in broiler

chickens

التأكيل، مواد العلف الغير التقليدية، تقييد

التسمينوإضافات األعالف في دجاج

Presented By

Prof. Dr. Elham Saleh Team leader

Under

The Supervision

Of

Prof. Dr. Hassan Mahmoud Abdel-Hafeez

Prof. Dr. Elham Saleh El-Sayed Saleh

Ass. Prof. Dr. Samar Sayed Tawfeek

Dr. Ibrahim Mohamed Ibrahim

Asmaa Salah Awad Abdel-Daim

Ph.Vet.Sc.Degree

Aim of the study To investigate:

using the feed additives in stress situations

correctly, beneficially and economically.

the effect of natural feed additives as probiotic,

prebiotic & synbiotic) with and without feed

restriction on production performance of

broilers.

the impacts of using commercial enzymes to

improve the nutritional value of some

unconventional feedstuffs as potato peels (PP)

and sugar beet pulp (SPP) in poultry diets.

Feed plays an important role in broiler

production by sharing about 70% of total

production cost.

Great efforts have been made to improve feed

conversion, and to minimize feed cost.

Natural feed additives have become even more

important since the European Union banned

the use of antibiotic growth promoters in 1999

(drug free production).

Introduction

Probiotics: - are alive active microorganisms. - used mainly to reinforce the intestinal mucosal barrier against deleterious agents. - improve digestion, metabolism & nutrient absorption.

Introduction

Prebiotics:

- are a non-digestible cell wall, special form of fiber or

carbohydrate. - beneficially affects the host by selectively stimulating the growth and/or activity of one or a limited number of bacteria in the intestine.

Introduction

Synbiotics:

- are defined as a mixture of probiotics and prebiotics. - beneficially affects the host by activating the metabolism of one or a limited number of health promoting bacteria and/or by selectively stimulating their growth improving the host’s welfare.

Introduction

Enzymes:

- improve the nutritional

value of feed ingredients by

increasing the efficiency of

digestion------increase the

availability of nutrient.

- help break down anti-

nutritional factors.

- used for enhancing broiler

utilization of

unconventional feedstuffs.

Introduction

Feed restriction :

- It is one of the feeding strategies. - It improves feed conversion and reduces feed cost. - Many feed restriction programs are applied at different phases of age for several duration.

Compensatory growth:

- It occurs as a result of feed restriction - It is effective tool for bringing about better economic return

Introduction

Agro-industrial by-products:

- currently can be used to overcome shortage and rising costs of conventional feed ingredients. - used as unconventional feedstuffs. - are cheap and available in large quantities in Egypt, such as potato peels and sugar beet pulp.

Introduction

Potato peels

Sugar beet pulp

- No. of experiments: two separate experiments:

• Experiment I Natural feed additives with and without feed

restriction.

• Experiment II Feeding of some agro-industrial by-products

(PP & SBP) with and without enzymes.

- Birds : unsexed one day old broiler chicks (240 & 150 Arbor Acres

chicks for experiment I & II respectively)

- Housing: deep litter system

- Lightening period: 23 h light and one hour darkness

-Temperature : set at 32°C at the age of one day and then gradually

reduced as the birds progressed in age

Materials & methods

Experiment I

B ( restricted feeding) A ( ad- libitum feeding) Trial

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Group

Syn Pre Pro Control Syn Pre Pro Control

Synbiotic Prebiotic Probiotic - Synbiotic Prebiotic Probiotic - Feed additives

½

Enhancer +

½ Bio-Mos

Bio-Mos Enhancer - ½

Enhancer

+ ½ Bio-

Mos

Bio-Mos

(MOS)

Enhancer

(B.lichenifo

rmis & B.

subtilis)

-

- 1.13

- 0.63

- 0.38

- 2.0

-1.0

- 0.5

0.250

0.250

0.250

-

- 1.13

- 0.63.

- 0.38

- 2.0

-1.0

- 0.5

0.250

0.250

0.250

- Rate of inclusion

(kg/ton) starter

grower

finisher

Feeding regimen

Fed ad-libitum 1st – 7th day

5 hour feed restriction

( from 9 a.m. to12 a.m. & from 1 p.m .to 3

p.m.)

Fed ad-libitum 8th – 56th day

- Performance indices

- Blood parameters ( Hb, PCV, glucose, total protein, albumin, globulin & total

cholesterol )

- Carcass characteristics

- Economical efficiency

Parameters

Table 1 The experimental design

Table 2 Physical composition (%) of the control diets*

Diet Ingredient

Finisher Grower Starter

60.72 52.53 45.77 Yellow corn, ground

29.10 35.20 34.94 Soybean oil meal

0.00 0.00 6.00 Corn gluten meal

5.32 6.99 7.23 Vegetable oil

2.00 2.00 2.00 Sugar cane molasses

0.27 0.35 0.48 Common salt

1.29 1.35 1.40 Limestone

0.96 1.20 1.75 Dicalcium phosphate

0.04 0.08 0.13 DL-Methionine

0.30

0.30

0.30

Mineral & vitamin premix

*Formulated on the basis of NRC requirements (1994).

Table 3 Energy value (kcal / kg) and chemical composition (%) of the control

diets

* Determined – the rest are calculated

Component Starter Grower Finisher

Dry matter* 91.45 91.18 90.83

Metabolizable energy 3203 3203 3200

Crude protein* 23.03 20.06 18.00

Ether extract* 9.52 9.38 7.87

Crude fiber* 3.04 3.13 2.92

Calcium 1.04 0.90 0.81

Available phosphorus 0.47 0.35 0.30

Sodium 0.20 0.15 0.12

Methionine 0.51 0.39 0.32

Methionine +Cystine 0.90 0.72 0.62

Lysine 1.12 1.08 0.93

Results

Table 4 Body weight (g) development of birds throughout the experimental

period (Mean ± SD)

17

Period in

weeks

Trial A ( ad-libitum feeding) Trial B ( restricted feeding)

Group Group

1

Control

2

Pro

3

Pre

4

Syn

5

Control

6

Pro

7

Pre

8

Syn

0

46.27

± 2.9Aa

46.40

± 2.9Aa

47.08

± 2.9Aa

46.68

± 3.1Aa

46.55

± 3.4Aa

45.69

± 4.2Aa

45.32

± 3.6Aa

46.38

± 3.6Aa

3

757.69

±52.7ABb

746.28

±54.4ABb

746.64

± 39.2Ac

804.93

± 79.3Bd

703.11

± 82.8Aa

704.85

± 54.4Aa

684.50

±76.46Aa

672.0

± 47.4Aa

6 1590.22

±76.6Ac

1898.18

±58.0Ce

1671.22

±62.4Bd

2014.60

± 91.5Df

1239.37

±103.8Aa

1676.39

±83.5Dd

1468.24

±97.1Bb

1550.46

± 98.9Cc

8 2171.31

±130.0Ab

2774.47

±107.8Cf

2344.00

±131.53Bd

2907.22

±110.8Dg

1679.94

±139.32Aa

2549.50

±104.8De

2112.56

±115.59Bb

2259.28

±128.6Cc

A, B & C Means within the same row (in each trial independently) with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05).

a, b, c, d, e, f, g Means within the same row (in both trials together) with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05).

Body weight development (g)

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

1800

2100

2400

2700

3000

0 3 6 8

Bod

y w

eigh

t (g

)

Period (weeks)

Control Pro Pre Syn

Control + Res Pro + Res Pre + Res Syn + Res

Table 5 Body weight gain (g) of birds throughout the experimental period

(Mean ± SD)

19

Period in

weeks

Trial A( ad-libitum feeding) Trial B ( restricted feeding)

Group Group

1

Control

2

Pro

3

Pre

4

Syn

5

Control

6

Pro

7

Pre

8

Syn

Starter

(0-3)

711.42

± 52.7

699.88

± 53.9

699.56

± 39.2

758.25

± 78.7

656.56

± 83.7

659.16

± 54.88

639.16

± 76.88

625.53

± 47.8

Grower

(3-6)

832.53

± 81.1

1151.90

± 65.7

924.58

± 72.6

1209.67

± 132.2

536.26

± 105.6

971.54

± 95.14

783.74

± 114.01

878.46

± 118.4

Finisher

(6-8)

581.09

± 139.7

876.29

± 156.5

672.78

± 118.01

892.62

± 124.2

440.57

± 105.62

873.11

± 123.41

644.32

± 72.02

708.82

± 161.4

Total

( 0-8 )

2125.04

± 129.9

2728.07

± 108.2

2296.92

± 130.1

2860.32

± 111.2

1633.39±

140.18

2503.81

± 103.29

2067.24

± 115.56

2212.81

± 128.5

Table 6 Feed intake (g) of birds throughout the experimental period

20

Period

in weeks

Trial A (ad-libitum feeding) Trial B ( restricted feeding)

Group Group

Control Pro Pre Syn Control Pro Pre

Syn

Starter

(0-3)

999.88

768.87

917.33

833.55

865.1

715.75

757.41

724.63

Grower

(3-6)

1521.46

1936.08

1665.89

1951.65

939.76

1598.28

1332.67

1410.75

Finisher

(6-8)

1604.05

1874.68

1612

1872.40

970.19

1778.35

1425.24

1401.27

Total

(0-8)

4125.39

4579.63

4195.22

4657.60

2775.05

4092.38

3521.32

3536.65

Total feed intake (g) of birds throughout the experimental period (0-8 weeks)

4125.39

4579.63

4195

4657.6

2775.05

4099.12

3521.32 3536.65

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Control Pro Pre Syn Control + Res Pro + Res Pre + Res Syn + Res

Bo

dy w

eig

ht

(g)

Group

Table 7 Feed conversion ratio (g/g) of birds throughout the experimental

period

22

Period in

weeks

Trial A( ad-libitum feeding) Trial B( restricted feeding)

Group Group

Control Pro Pre Syn Control Pro

Pre Syn

Starter

(0-3)

1.40 1.10 1.31 1.10 1.32 1.08 1.18 1.16

Grower

(3-6)

1.83 1.68 1.80 1.61 1.75 1.64 1.70 1.61

Finisher

(6-8)

2.76 2.14 2.40 2.10 2.20 2.04 2.21 1.98

Total

(0-8)

1.94 1.68 1.83 1.63 1.70 1.63 1.70 1.60

Total period costs

(L.E./kg)

Trial I (ad-libitum feeding)

Trial II ( restricted feeding)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Control Probiotic Prebiotic Synbiotic Control Probiotic Prebiotic Synbiotic

Cost of starter gain 4.01 3.12 3.83 3.43 3.49 2.88 3.15 2.99

Cost of grower gain 5.44 6.95 6.06 6.45 3.35 5.72 4.85 4.68

Cost of finisher gain 5.24 6.17 5.34 6.19 3.17 5.86 4.72 4.63

Total cost /gain 14.69 16.24 15.23 16.07 10.01 14.46 12.72 12.30

Total gain ,kg 2.125 2.728 2.297 2.861 1.633 2.504 2.067 2.213

Feed cost of

production

6.92 5.95 6.63 5.62 6.13 5.78 6.15 5.56

Economical efficiency in the different experimental groups

Conclusion

Diets supplemented with synbiotic, probiotic &

prebiotic (with and without feed restriction)

improved broiler performance in comparison with

the control.

Feed restriction improved feed conversion ratio in

comparison with non restricted groups.

Natural feed additives can be used as anti-stress

factor for feed restriction .

Experiment II

Under study

Table 8 The experimental design

B A Trial

Sugar beet pulp

+ enzymes

Potato peels

+ enzymes

Sugar beet

pulp

Potato

peels

Control Group

Experimental Control Diet

7.5 15 7.5 15 - Inclusion rate %

+ + - - - Enzymes

- Performance indices

- Blood biochemistry (total cholesterol & triglycerides)

- Carcass characteristics

- Economical efficiency

- Digestibility measurements

Parameters

THANKS 9/19/2015 28